parsnipsumthing

How do they create first sample from which to "learn" without importing current bias?

The author argued in 2011 that craigslist would be an afterthought within 10 years. Its revenue has grown from 122m when he wrote that to in excess of 380m now. I think he's pretty clearly wrong.

Seriously? Why? Do they expect young supermodels to date them?

Travis Kalanick is clearly an adrenaline junkie. I understand the start-up CEOs need to be bold but he seems to completely lack the ability to evaluate and minimize risk. Good strategy isn't just about winning every battle, it's also about avoiding the battles you don't need to fight. Travis seems like he's never seen a fight he won't jump into. It's wild.

I remember being on holiday in Thailand and seeing selfie sticks about 3 years before they hit the mainstream in the UK. I wish I'd started importing them myself.

I'm an H-1B who would be thrilled to see these companies shut down. If they were removed, the competition for non fraudulent H-1Bs would dramatically reduce and the whole process would become much less painful. Fantastic if Trump actually acts on this.

Not necessarily. Local knowledge can play a huge part in building companies in emerging markets. Look at any number of companies entering Asia.

This is a great take. Honestly, Travis seems like he is a competent CEO and for a pure technology company, he should be admired. The problem is that Uber's interactions with the broader public are so strained.

Thank you! Honestly, comparing this to a job screening is a great move because it reveals his analysis to be pretty silly. This guy is looking for "intelligence" and "beauty" as universally agreed traits whereas even businesses who are screening for "intelligence" are able to forced to search for specific and industry-relevant information. It would be like hiring a CEO with only an IQ test.

It's also the same with "beauty". Even industries that hire primarily based on beauty (modeling, acting etc) have widely differing criteria based on their own niche in the marketplace. American models are quite different to British models, for e.g. The French magazines require a different look to, say, German magazines. Catalogue models vs editorial models. Throughout Europe, various markets require different heights, different looks and different personas. That doesn't even take into account racial differences across the world.

The E-2 is a non immigration visa without dual intent. So... just like an F-1 student visa which is a non immigration visa without dual intent.

All this means in reality is that once you've come to the US and established the basis for another visa, your "intent" changes and you apply for an applicable immigration visa. People do every year with both the F-1 and the E-2 visa.

However, some people prefer to reside in the US long term with non immigration status. The E-2 allows people to emigrate to the US and remain there, indefinitely renewing their E-2 visa, whilst (i) protecting their future non-US tax status, and (2) entering and exiting the US for long periods of time (as long as the business is operating successfully). This contrasts with a green card, which (i) subjects green card holders to "citizen-like" tax obligations after a specified period of time and (ii) typically requires continuous residence in the US.

The continuous presence restriction would lift upon receipt of citizenship but not everyone wants (or is able) to hold dual citizenships.

An E-2 is just fine for many rich people.

Nope. You mean you need a consultation firm that does all of this for you for a fee, of which there are many.

The EB-5 is a huge site for immigration fraud and in many cases it functions as a green card-for-cash exchange. In fact, the poor foreign investors who didn't understand this are now suing state governments and associated companies because they received no returns from their investment.[1]

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellensheng/2016/08/01/foreign-in...

Google "EB-5 fraud" for many many more cases but note that, unlike in most immigration cases, the fraud here is being perpetrated against the visa applicants, not the immigration service. There is no suggestion that they do not have the capital or that they have not received a visa, just that there are no returns.

Parole essentially means granting the right to enter or remain the US to an applicant who does not technically meet the conditions for the visa or status. It's usually applied on humanitarian grounds or to fill "gaps" in the immigration system [1] where there would be negative consequences.

It's an attempt to soften the harsh consequences that often arise from these counterintuitive rules in a very technical legal space that is almost impossible to legislatively correct.

[1] https://www.cbp.gov/travel/us-citizens/advance-parole

I doubt it. There are already 2 programs that allow rich people to immigrate by investing their own money: the EB-5 and the E-2 visa [1].

However, these visas require that people invest their own money. This visa is different because it allows investment with other people's money. It's a big change.

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-through-job/gree...

But wouldn't this clearly be politics? And is this really necessary for HN?

Is anyone concerned that these institutions are trading a level of detached respect for a temporary boost in popularity? I really don't need my dictionary to be "woke" and I'm not sure I enjoy listening to it shade people on the internet.

I think it weakens trust in institutions when they are all willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.

There are so many start up podcasts that focus on the origin of the founders/company and how awesome they are and they all blur into one. Rocketship, Tim Ferris etc. Please don't do a podcast like that.

You guys have the clout to do something a bit more special and unique than just cool interviews with successful founders. And you probably don't have time to do all of the narrative shaping that Gimlet and other media companies do to find all the "quirky" stories that fill time. That's why something based around office hours makes so much sense. Y Combinator's office hours on youtube are amazing. You've even expanded office hours to non YC companies because you see how valuable they are to the start up community. This is another way of realizing that value.

He went on to say further things about them.

But wouldn't that be better for us as a society to know? The outcome sounds positive here.

Yes, but those are the more radical anti-femme feminists. There's very little ideological consistency. The author of the post decrying the lack of pockets wears makeup, high heels and bras on her blog.

If you are a woman or spend any time in feminist circles, you will come across the "lack of pockets" argument multiple times.

It's a bad argument.

Fundamentally, "pockets" have only become a feminist rallying cry because of their unpopularity. Even if you assume that women's clothes do not contain pockets because of underlying misogyny, that same argument would apply to any other parts of women's grooming that do not apply to men. Skirts, makeup, dresses etc.

Yet, no-one is willing to openly rally against makeup or skirts or dresses because feminist women want to wear them. "Pockets" are a safe repository for illusory protest because they have very few IRL defenders. There is simply no demand for them.

This is simply virtue signaling. Nothing more and nothing less.

Er, can you give some reason why you think this?

The author seemed to go out of his way to ground all of his critique in well-cited design principles. It's depressingly indicative of modern internet discourse that the first recourse is a lazy ad hom.

Millions of Americans every year don't pay taxes or file any tax returns. I would recommend that instead.

If you are a not particularly wealthy individual and you don't owe any back taxes to the IRS, the consequences of not any filing taxes are likely to be nothing.

Because things are typically more invasive the closer they are to your body. So underwear would be typically be the most invasive thing. People's bodies smell and sweat and secrete... secretions. Clothes also wear in ways that are specific to your body. You can tell a lot about people by wearing their clothes.

I think you're getting downvotes because your point could have been stated much more concisely. However, I agree with you that there is a market for temporary clothing. Clothing subscription companies like Gwynnie Bee[1] are attempting to also solve this problem.

[1] https://closet.gwynniebee.com/

But people often have friends and family stay in their home. How often do adult women actually share clothes? I don't mean teenagers or students, I mean actual adult women.

People's comfort level is going to be lowest the more invasive a product is and clothing is probably an order of magnitude more invasive than a living space. But, as you said, maybe this becomes the next airbnb. I doubt it, but maybe.

I just don't see women doing this. I get students participating because they don't value their belongings.

But as an adult woman, I just cannot imagine being part of this... ever. It just seems like an idea that will not scale. I'd be interested in being proved wrong though.

Isn't this simply an issue of risk preference? Working for privately held startups is more risky than working for established businesses. Presumably employees are willing to stomach this additional risk for the presumed upsides.

Is the answer really to burden employees with even more data, or just for them to be smarter about where they choose to work?

It's worth noting that the amounts by which their metabolism was lowered are not as shocking as they seem at first.

The 300 calories a day difference in calories burned is very limiting if your BMR is 1800. But for some of these contestants their BMR, even at the lower weights, might be 2000 calories per day. And if they do moderate exercise, they can burn up to 1000 calories more than this. If you are expending 3000 calories per day then a 300 calorie difference is minimal.

That made me laugh out loud because it's clearly so correct. Sigh.

I really dislike the title, tone and dramatic quality of this piece.

I went to law school and got a job as a tax attorney. I don't consider my work or world particularly secretive. The barriers to entry are not peculiarly high and lawyers as a profession are a little too happy to talk about themselves.

There's a great comment on the Atlantic that states this better than I can

"If by secret, you mean extraordinarily complex, then yes. But... that's not the definition of secret.

It's not secret. There are many classes on this (albeit from professional-level degrees) and it's all based on public statutes and court cases. All of which are freely available to any person.

A large part of it being "secret" has to do with people's willingness to listen and understand. I'm a tax attorney, I understand these deals, and I can explain them rather well so even someone unfamiliar with tax law will understand it. However, it still does take a bit of active listening on behalf of an unfamiliar (as in, unfamiliar with tax law) listener to actually understand what I'm talking about, regardless of how much I simplify it."

The most disappointing thing about international tax is how little even professional journalists understand it, or care to. It is simply easier to assert that international tax is a scam and since the general public can barely count to 10 using both hands, there's no way to disprove them.